G.R. No. L-37051 July 31, 1978
ANITA U. LORENZANA, petitioner, vs. POLLY CAYETANO and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a possessory dispute over a parcel of land. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court, ordering petitioner Anita Lorenzana to restore possession of the property to private respondent Polly Cayetano and to reconstruct Cayetano’s demolished fence and improvements. The decision also ordered Lorenzana to pay Cayetano actual and moral damages amounting to P5,500.00. Lorenzana filed a second motion for modification, seeking to convert the possessory aspect of the judgment into a purely monetary award for damages.
Lorenzana argued that the order for her to restore possession and reconstruct improvements had become moot and legally impossible to enforce. In support, she attached a contract of lease dated May 16, 1974, executed between her and the Bureau of Building and Real Property Management. This contract, approved by the Secretary of General Services, legally leased to her Lot 11-B, Block 2201 of the Cadastral Survey of Manila, which included the disputed property. She had taken possession and was paying monthly rentals. The Supreme Court had previously issued a restraining order against the execution of the possessory judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the possessory aspect of the final judgment, ordering restoration of possession and reconstruction of improvements, should be modified due to a supervening event.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the motion for modification. It ruled that the possessory aspect of the affirmed decision had indeed become moot and academic. The supervening event—the execution of a lawful lease contract between the government, as owner, and petitioner Lorenzana—legalized her possession of the premises. Compelling Lorenzana to restore possession to Cayetano would violate her legally acquired property rights under the lease. Therefore, the order to restore possession and reconstruct improvements could no longer be enforced.
However, the Court addressed the obligation concerning the destroyed improvements. To avoid further delay from remanding the case for a hearing to assess the exact indemnity, the Court fixed a reasonable amount itself. It ordered Lorenzana to pay Cayetano the sum of P1,500.00 as the value of the destroyed fence, flower pots, trellises, electric installations, cement patio, and other decorations. This modification was made in the interest of a final and fair resolution. The rest of the decision, including the award of P5,500.00 in damages, remained standing.